[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch roadmap 1 (and "what's tom up to")
From: |
Jan Hudec |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch roadmap 1 (and "what's tom up to") |
Date: |
Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:52:51 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.6+20040523i |
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 09:32:23 -0400, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> Jan Hudec wrote:
> >>My question was more to know why Arch need a so specific embedded
> >>langage. But i should wait for your third roadmap !
> >
> >
> >For one thing arch needs SOME embeded language. The reason is, if
> >nothing else, the number of wrapper and scripts around tla that exist.
> >The kind of stuff they do is mostly glueing primitive commands, which is
> >too cumbersome to do in C.
>
> Actually, tla includes some infrastructure for calling user-level
> commands-- "update" actually calls the "replay" or "apply-delta" user
> commands. So it may not be as cumbersome as you think.
No, it's not that cumbersome there. But you need to recompile each time,
which makes it harder -- and less likely -- for someone to put up
a simple enhancement while hacking something else. That's what scripting
languages are nice. That's why shell wrappers around tla exist. It is
better if the scripting support is integrated.
> >So the idea is, that tla should have the
> >primitive commands in C, cleaned up, simple and flexible. And a simple
> >interpreter to build a user friendly interface on top of them.
>
> The plan is *also* to make libtla into a real library, which can then
> have bindings for various languages, scripting or otherwise. So Furth's
> not necessary for the purpose of creating friendly interfaces.
Yes, that's an even nicer plan.
> But there's a lot of sense in mixed-language programming; using a
> scripting language for the high-level stuff, and using C for the
> low-level stuff. I just don't know whether the advantages of using
> Furth instead of an existing language will outweigh the disadvantages that
> - No one knows Furth
> - There are no Furth libraries or GPLed code that we can use
> - Furth will take time and effort to develop
Personaly I believe it won't. Partly because I don't see any advantages
in Furth. The only advantage I see is, that Tom wants to write it
anyway, as a base for pika. And now that parrot promisses to run scheme
pretty fast, I wonder how big success pika will be.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 'Bulb' Hudec
<address@hidden>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch roadmap 1 (and "what's tom up to"), (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch roadmap 1 (and "what's tom up to"), William Dode, 2004/06/29
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch roadmap 1 (and "what's tom up to"), Charles Duffy, 2004/06/29
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch roadmap 1 (and "what's tom up to"), Tom Lord, 2004/06/29
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch roadmap 1 (and "what's tom up to"), Jan Hudec, 2004/06/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch roadmap 1 (and "what's tom up to"), Aaron Bentley, 2004/06/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch roadmap 1 (and "what's tom up to"),
Jan Hudec <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch roadmap 1 (and "what's tom up to"), William Dode, 2004/06/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch roadmap 1 (and "what's tom up to"), Jani Monoses, 2004/06/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch roadmap 1 (and "what's tom up to"), James Blackwell, 2004/06/30
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch roadmap 1 (and "what's tom up to"), Miles Bader, 2004/06/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch roadmap 1 (and "what's tom up to"), Aaron Bentley, 2004/06/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch roadmap 1 (and "what's tom up to"), Tom Lord, 2004/06/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch roadmap 1 (and "what's tom up to"), Tom Lord, 2004/06/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch roadmap 1 (and "what's tom up to"), Aaron Bentley, 2004/06/30
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: arch roadmap 1 (and "what's tom up to"), Miles Bader, 2004/06/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch roadmap 1 (and "what's tom up to"), Colin Walters, 2004/06/30